I'm not questioning how the lockout was ended in the NFL. I question whether it would be in the players best interest to pursue the same action.

The NFL does not have guaranteed contracts. The NBA does.

There are 4 billion guaranteed reasons why the NBA should not follow the NFL players' path.

I could be wrong in my interpretation of things but I don't think I am. This seems to be a big issue that has not been discussed in depth in the mainstream media. I don't know if my interpretation is wrong or the media is stooopid.

You are absolutely correct in everything you're saying.In that article I posted above by David Aldridge he breaks down all the comparisons between the two sides. ADD I see you posted one as well from Hoopsworld.
It has been discussed internally within the Players Union for quite some time. They have a petition signed by hundreds of players willing to Decertify if necessary. Not sure how much its been played out in the media, but I've heard it been discussed as option from a pretty early point in the game. Whether thats just a bargaining chip, a "bluff" if you will, who knows, but they are willing to do it. Or at least the Petition thing says they are. I agree it nots their best option, but it certainly is an option unfortunately. I can't imagine the ramifications of that move though ... would be huuuge as you said.

Last edited by Joey; Sat Apr 30th, 2011 at 09:21 AM.

"That was Nasty right? Cocked that Joint back and banged on 'em." -James Johnson

"Unfortunately, the proposal is very similar to the proposal the league submitted over a year ago," union president Derek Fisher told ESPN.com. "This last proposal doesn't look close to what we were expecting."
-Derek Fisher

Hunter, who has said publicly in recent months that there is a 99 percent chance of a lockout if the owners insist on sticking to the terms of their original proposal, could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

"With the recent news that Round 1 ratings are at an all-time high, the popularity of the game globally has never been higher, we have to work to keep this going in the right direction," Fisher said. "I will continue to urge our players to be prepared in the event of a lockout, but will remain steadfast in my efforts to drive this process forward."

"That was Nasty right? Cocked that Joint back and banged on 'em." -James Johnson

The Empire Strikes Back

NOTE: I'm actually for what the owners are proposing. I just like the picture and it fits the title.

CHICAGO – The NBA owners contend that they will suffer an estimated $300 million in combined losses for this 2011-12 season. The players’ union believes that number is significantly smaller, owning to alternative accounting methods. Both sides remain far apart overall in negotiations of a new collective bargaining agreement, fanning fears of an extended labor lockout after the current pact expires June 30.

So, NBA commissioner David Stern was asked Wednesday, what level of financial losses would the league find acceptable? The question got a swift rebuke from Stern.

“We’re not going to lose any money,” Stern said. “I’m not going to be commissioner of a league that is comfortable [losing money]. Because I don’t have a group of owners who find it acceptable for me to have that conversation with them.

“You don’t have $4 billion worth of revenue and pay out over $2 billion in salary and benefits to lose money. It’s something that we have sort of gotten used to as the revenues have gone up … but the world has changed about the prospect for all franchises, the world has changed for a lot of reasons – and economically – and now people who make investments in buildings and things expect not to lose money.”

Stern was in town to formally present the NBA Most Valuable Player Award to Chicago’s Derrick Rose before tipoff of Game 2 of the Bulls-Hawks playoff series at United Center. In meeting with reporters, Stern declined to respond to reports that the union was unhappy with the owners’ latest proposal, delivered last week.

He did expound more freely on Rose and one reporter’s mention in the same sentence of Rose and Michael Jordan. Not that Stern was in a comparing mood.

“I do know that he is the youngest MVP, that he deserves the award that he’s getting tonight, he had a heckuva season and he’s a heckuva teammate,” the commissioner said. “So you can check it all off – he’s a heck of a player.

“If we can keep him healthy, he’s going to have some career. And there are a lot of players who would like him not have this trophy next year.”

The PA doesn't agree. Maybe they're right? Maybe the league is including things like settlement money Clippers' owner Sterling has had to pay out for being a heartless bastard? They're probably not including that but without any good information in articles like this it allows our minds to run free with speculation.

What's the mortgage payment on $400M stadium? What about maintenance, upkeep and improvements? Taxes and lawyers? What about all those tens of thousands of NBA employees that the players seems to act like don't exist? How much are their salaries worth? How much does the league shell out in advertising to help gross that $4B?

Contracts are phased out. You can't pursue players in free agency until your salary drops below the hard cap. You can't extend contracts or re-sign players if you are over the hard cap. Once below the hard cap you can never exceed the hard cap again.

Contracts are reduced across the board to a certain proportion so that all teams are below the hard cap. (This really hurts for guys like Bosh who took less money to go to Miami to begin with).

Contracts are reduced and contracts are phased out. Contract are reduced but not enough to get luxury tax teams below the hard cap. The rest is accomplished via letting those bigger contracts expire.

The salary cap is increased $10-20M and the rest is taken care of by reducing contracts and/or phasing them out.

Any way you dice it. A hard cap hurts the big spenders competitive edge the most. It may or may not hurt the Superstar's salaries.

I think #4 is the scenario you would be most likely to see the PA agree to.

I like number 4 as well, but how about making the luxury tax more penalized, by say a $3 or $5 for every $1 over, phased in over 3yrs? It would even it out very quickly.

Has anyone seen this supposed list of 22 teams that have lost $? I would be interested to know which teams. We all know Sacramento, Indiana, Charlotte, and of course Dallas, but who else? Rumours of Milwaukie and Minny as well.

I like number 4 as well, but how about making the luxury tax more penalized, by say a $3 or $5 for every $1 over, phased in over 3yrs? It would even it out very quickly.

A luxury tax of having to pay the league $3 for every $1 you spend over cap isn't going to fly for the players either. On top of that, teams like the Lakers and Knicks will still be able to afford to over spend while small-mid market teams won't ever be able to do so. At least with the hard cap the rules become far more simple, transparent and fair. It's also proven to work well as we see the NFL continue to kick everyone's butt.

End of the day I don't see how the players can justify a revenue sharing system that means the owners do not make money (or at least break even.) Certainly there are those that are just stupid with their money (Dallas losing money since the 09-10 season) and they have that right, but Stern was challenged about this. I think it is ridiculous to expect an owner 'should' lose money.

End of the day I don't see how the players can justify a revenue sharing system that means the owners do not make money (or at least break even.) Certainly there are those that are just stupid with their money (Dallas losing money since the 09-10 season) and they have that right, but Stern was challenged about this. I think it is ridiculous to expect an owner 'should' lose money.

I don't think the PA is arguing that the owners should lose money. The questions are: are the owners really losing money on their NBA operations? How many owners? Are they losing money because of the system or poor ownership/management or the fact the market isn't viable? Depending on how you answer those questions, you reach very different conclusions.

For example, let's say I own a chain of 30 restaurants in Ontario. Overall, my cash flow and revenues are strong but I have 5 franchises that are losing money. Now, do I change the way I run my entire business to help those 5 franchises or do I eliminate them? Does it make any sense for me to cut salaries at 25 money-making locations and mkae other cuts to save 5? Probably not. Now, if I have 20 franchises losing money, I have a systemic problem that I need to address.

Let's add another variable: let's say my franchises are owned by other businesses that consolidate their financial activities. What if the franchise itself makes money but the other activities lose money. Do I change my system because of that? Should my employees accept cuts to pay based on the fact that businesses entirely unrelated to them lose money?

Personally, my suspicion is that losses by owners have less to do with the current collective bargaining agreement than they do with the fact that some of these markets simply can't support a NBA franchise. Until you deal with that, no changes to the CBA will matter much in the long-run.

End of the day I don't see how the players can justify a revenue sharing system that means the owners do not make money (or at least break even.) Certainly there are those that are just stupid with their money (Dallas losing money since the 09-10 season) and they have that right, but Stern was challenged about this. I think it is ridiculous to expect an owner 'should' lose money.

I don't know about you but I am never investing in anything where the goal is to break even. Sounds self defeating to me. The players are going to crash and burn. These owners, they're shrewd business people. You can't make money in the hundreds of millions without having a killer instinct. Most them have empires outside the NBA, it's how they could afford to own a franchise. Others are mega corporations. Either way, they all have many revenue streams while I am willing to wager that most NBA players only have revenue streams dependent on basketball. No ball, no money. No money and they're in great trouble.

I don't know about you but I am never investing in anything where the goal is to break even. Sounds self defeating to me. The players are going to crash and burn. These owners, they're shrewd business people. You can't make money in the hundreds of millions without having a killer instinct. Most them have empires outside the NBA, it's how they could afford to own a franchise. Others are mega corporations. Either way, they all have many revenue streams while I am willing to wager that most NBA players only have revenue streams dependent on basketball. No ball, no money. No money and they're in great trouble.

Stern and Hunter met recently and are planning another meeting in NYC

NBA commissioner David Stern and National Basketball Players Association executive director Billy Hunter have been meeting face-to-face to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement, sources close to the talks told ESPN.com on Tuesday.

The sources said the sides met last week in Chicago with staffers from both sides present. The two sides are also set to talk this week in New York

Hunter and Stern negotiated deals in 1999 and 2005. In past negotiations between the two, face-to-face talks have not always led to significant progress, but there has never been big progress without such high-level meetings.

Against a backdrop of labor strife and ongoing legal action in the NFL, representatives of the NBA and the players' association have recently softened their public rhetoric.

Union officials have called the NFL players' tactic of taking the argument to the courts a last resort, while the league has made clear they are open to input from the union.

Stern's deputy, Adam Silver, said on April 15 that the league's goal is "a system in which all 30 teams can compete, and, if they are well-managed, to make a profit. We have never suggested to the union that there's only one way to accomplish that end."

The league has been seeking $800 million in additional annual revenue from the players, as well as a hard salary cap.

The union has argued for a revenue deal similar to the current one, while rejecting the idea of a hard cap. Hunter says a hard salary cap would effectively end guaranteed contracts which he calls "the lifeblood" of professional basketball.

"We've had that right for years, and it's not something we're trying to give up," Hunter told ESPN.com on May 21.

Hunter's words in that last quote sound weak. "Try" is a weak word. I think the league is going to get their hard cap and my opinion is not based on that quote but it does serve as tiny hint as to where the players probably know they stand.

Hunter's words in that last quote sound weak. "Try" is a weak word. I think the league is going to get their hard cap and my opinion is not based on that quote but it does serve as tiny hint as to where the players probably know they stand.

The players have no leverage at all. The owners will get whatever they want.

The problem, of course, is that we all know what will happen next: the hard cap will continue to rise cause BRI will continue to rise thanks to the success of the big markets; the markets that aren't viable will once again start losing money; there will still be a bunch of horribly managed teams with crappy owners that won't/can't spend the money to compete; David Stern will tell us the system is broken cause some teams are losing money/can't compete with big markets. Rinse, repeat.

The most interesting comment for me was the "so that 30 teams can compete" statement. Why? Why should fans in great basketball cities with great management suffer so that poorly-run teams in bad markets can provide tax losses for their owners' holding companies? Is that really the ideal NBA?

The players have no leverage at all. The owners will get whatever they want.

The problem, of course, is that we all know what will happen next: the hard cap will continue to rise cause BRI will continue to rise thanks to the success of the big markets; the markets that aren't viable will once again start losing money; there will still be a bunch of horribly managed teams with crappy owners that won't/can't spend the money to compete; David Stern will tell us the system is broken cause some teams are losing money/can't compete with big markets. Rinse, repeat.

The most interesting comment for me was the "so that 30 teams can compete" statement. Why? Why should fans in great basketball cities with great management suffer so that poorly-run teams in bad markets can provide tax losses for their owners' holding companies? Is that really the ideal NBA?

Dude that's a very broad statement. I think the point he is trying to make is that it's much easier to compete at a high level when you have endless pockets to buy quality players. To be able to stay competitive like the Spurs you basically need a near infallible GM and luck out in the lottery.

It's also very hard to create a very strong fan base when your GM can't spend half as much as a lot of the contenders or are forced to overspend on good (but not great) players to stay competitive while crippling their cap for years. See Joe Johnson, AI in philly, etc.

The most interesting comment for me was the "so that 30 teams can compete" statement. Why? Why should fans in great basketball cities with great management suffer so that poorly-run teams in bad markets can provide tax losses for their owners' holding companies? Is that really the ideal NBA?

Does the NBA have too many teams? Too few? I don't know the answer and I don't know how one would begin to find an answer. I don't think you can leave it up to simplistic economic arguments of let badly managed/small market teams fail, because of the level of infrastructure and investment it takes to start up a franchise. Also, the NBA as a whole is trying to expend it base and having x number of teams in x number of cities even if not doing well initially have a potential to do well down the road. My question for you is this, IF there is a way that allows 30 properly managed teams to compete why wouldn't you want that scenario?

"We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

I really dont know the ins and outs of the whole CBA discussion is between the NBA and the players, but what ive heard is that the NBA is demanding players to shed salary, which im very much in favor with. And yes to the hard cap as well.

I really dont know what the players are complaining about, i mean isnt 1 million enough? 2 million? i love the NBA, dont get me wrong, but i think its just utterly ridiculous that this people are getting paid millions and millions of dollars for putting a bouncing thing inside an iron thing. id rather have the money go to the owners and the NBA org itself, as they are the ones who employ people who make games, road trips run smoothly. and im pretty sure both owners and the NBA are far greater contributors to charity than individual players.

I really dont know what the players are complaining about, i mean isnt 1 million enough? 2 million? i love the NBA, dont get me wrong, but i think its just utterly ridiculous that this people are getting paid millions and millions of dollars for putting a bouncing thing inside an iron thing. id rather have the money go to the owners and the NBA org itself, as they are the ones who employ people who make games, road trips run smoothly. and im pretty sure both owners and the NBA are far greater contributors to charity than individual players.

You need to consider it from the Point of view of the Players though.
Without them, the owners aren't making ANY money.
With them the Owners are making MILLIONS. Hundred of Millions in some cases.
Right now, I believe, the Players get 57% (could be wrong) of the ALL revenues the League makes. That is how the Salary Cap is set each year.

To say to the guys that are risking their Bodies, and their Livelyhood to entertain the fans, that they should be given less money, so that the guys who sit around in Chairs all day, can make MORE money? That doesn't sound all that fair either.

And the amount of Time and Money given to Charity from Local Players is HUGE. NBA players do far more for the Community than any other Professional Sports League.

"That was Nasty right? Cocked that Joint back and banged on 'em." -James Johnson

You need to consider it from the Point of view of the Players though.
Without them, the owners aren't making ANY money.
With them the Owners are making MILLIONS. Hundred of Millions in some cases.
Right now, I believe, the Players get 57% (could be wrong) of the ALL revenues the League makes. That is how the Salary Cap is set each year.

To say to the guys that are risking their Bodies, and their Livelyhood to entertain the fans, that they should be given less money, so that the guys who sit around in Chairs all day, can make MORE money? That doesn't sound all that fair either.

And the amount of Time and Money given to Charity from Local Players is HUGE. NBA players do far more for the Community than any other Professional Sports League.

Yes, that is an undeniable fact. Of course, players make the money for owners, but i dont think theyre worth millions and millions of dollars. owners are subjected to operating costs, marketing, maintenance expenses, etc etc. players take their paychecks and spend it. sure they are risking their bodies, but how many players in the past decade have ever gotten career threatening injuries? and who pays for all the medical care that they receive when they do get injured, on top of the millions and millions of money they receive while getting treatment? yes, these owners sit on chairs all day, but theyre the ones who pay the 200+ workers who makes sure that these players are in condition, eat right, sleep in a good hotel, get to games on time. im not saying dont pay the players, pay them what is enough and considerable.

i guess if you really think about it though, its also the owners faults anyways, everytime they start a bidding war on these players, they run themselves out of business.

My question for you is this, IF there is a way that allows 30 properly managed teams to compete why wouldn't you want that scenario?

But we know there isn't. Look at the Holy Grail of pro sports leagues: the NFL. The only way a lot of markets stay afloat is with massive government subsidies for stadiums, along with coerced revenue sharing and a massive national tv deal. Even then, how many NFL teams are in trouble? There is a reason the NFL owners are engaged in a lockout.

Want a hard cap? Well, it sure has worked wonders for the NHL. Look at how successful Nashville, Atlanta, Phoenix, Florida, Tampa, Dallas, have been.

The reality is taht there are always going to be bad teams in bad markets. Bringing everyone down so that the lowest common denominators can survive won't work.

i love the NBA, dont get me wrong, but i think its just utterly ridiculous that this people are getting paid millions and millions of dollars for putting a bouncing thing inside an iron thing.

Think about this for a second: why aren't WNBA players paid millions of dollars? After all, they put a bouncy thing inside an iron thing, too. Why are supermodels paid millions to stand around and smile? My 200 pound assistant can stand around and smile, too. Why is Will Smith paid $20mm for playing dress up? My twins play dress up at home and no one pays them $20mm.